By 2010 we seem to have finally gotten past the argument if there is any problem with American vs European and Japanese achievement; the questions now are what to do about it, and how to know if the changes are effective. The book suggests that the problem is with the classroom culture of teaching and learning, rather than with individual teacher skills. The changes they suggested a decade ago were not acted on.
We also used to hear that both European and Japanese students were thoroughly trained in answering questions, but not in solving problems by applying what they had learned, and that American students excelled in this area. The videos suggest that the opposite is closer to the truth.
American classroom practices are still much as the book describes them, and presumably the others are not much changed either, although that is not the focus.
I would like to mention that any complaint about how well the videos portray classroom practice could be answered by making the original videos available on the internet, along with their official commentary and event coding. Not to reopen the interpretation to anyone with another opinion, but to validate it for most viewers. (Note that any privacy issues can be solved by digital processing that replaces recognizable faces by generic ones, without reducing the information shown by the video.)
That said, the American class still stays at a simpler level, with an amount of repetition that will be boring and counter productive for engaged students, and do very little to improve the other students. Either the German or Japanese model would be more effective.
From my own recollection, in the several decades that math instruction has been the focus of improvement efforts, it has in fact gotten worse. My own public school math instruction, in algebra and geometry, included proving theorems, both by the teacher, and as something expected from students, in homework and tests.
Although much of my own American schooling was closer to the German model I like several things about the Japanese model, one being the formalized respect between students and teacher. That is coming back in this country in charter schools, and never really ended in religious schools, but has certainly disappeared from most public schools.
Also in the Japanese model, letting students tackle problems first and then showing them a method, so that they will appreciate the difficulty and how the method overcomes it.
Unique to American schools is the lack of interest in learning by many students, coupled with the attitude that if they ever do need to know something, it will be someone's job to make sure they do learn it.
I did read further in the book; they suggested changes that would require a substantial amount of teacher time, which would either have to come out of the teaching day, or make the work day longer, with effects on salary and contracts. It would be an error to think that this much time will "somehow be found" without paying for it, yet that is the policy most likely to be tried.
We also used to hear that both European and Japanese students were thoroughly trained in answering questions, but not in solving problems by applying what they had learned, and that American students excelled in this area. The videos suggest that the opposite is closer to the truth.
American classroom practices are still much as the book describes them, and presumably the others are not much changed either, although that is not the focus.
I would like to mention that any complaint about how well the videos portray classroom practice could be answered by making the original videos available on the internet, along with their official commentary and event coding. Not to reopen the interpretation to anyone with another opinion, but to validate it for most viewers. (Note that any privacy issues can be solved by digital processing that replaces recognizable faces by generic ones, without reducing the information shown by the video.)
That said, the American class still stays at a simpler level, with an amount of repetition that will be boring and counter productive for engaged students, and do very little to improve the other students. Either the German or Japanese model would be more effective.
From my own recollection, in the several decades that math instruction has been the focus of improvement efforts, it has in fact gotten worse. My own public school math instruction, in algebra and geometry, included proving theorems, both by the teacher, and as something expected from students, in homework and tests.
Although much of my own American schooling was closer to the German model I like several things about the Japanese model, one being the formalized respect between students and teacher. That is coming back in this country in charter schools, and never really ended in religious schools, but has certainly disappeared from most public schools.
Also in the Japanese model, letting students tackle problems first and then showing them a method, so that they will appreciate the difficulty and how the method overcomes it.
Unique to American schools is the lack of interest in learning by many students, coupled with the attitude that if they ever do need to know something, it will be someone's job to make sure they do learn it.
I did read further in the book; they suggested changes that would require a substantial amount of teacher time, which would either have to come out of the teaching day, or make the work day longer, with effects on salary and contracts. It would be an error to think that this much time will "somehow be found" without paying for it, yet that is the policy most likely to be tried.